Lucky LaRue:Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

bigfatbuddhist:Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

Well, peer reviewed analysis didn't get them off their butts...

Like most Republicans, it's only when it directly affects them that there's any chance for change. Typically, that ends up in demands for handouts from the Fed though. If an actual change in thought occurs, the empathy/sympathy will be narrowly defined to their exact circumstances.

Summoner101:bigfatbuddhist: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

Well, peer reviewed analysis didn't get them off their butts...

Like most Republicans, it's only when it directly affects them that there's any chance for change. Typically, that ends up in demands for handouts from the Fed though. If an actual change in thought occurs, the empathy/sympathy will be narrowly defined to their exact circumstances.

Now even some conservatives in the insurance industry are starting to come around to climate change. Must be messing with their bottom line or something.

Gubbo:Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

Lucky LaRue:Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

UNC_Samurai:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

I'm sure he's just really concerned about Mexico City getting hit by this hurricane.

UNC_Samurai:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

I'm sure he's just really concerned about Mexico City getting hit by this hurricane.

Oh I know he's full of shiat. But it's a clever line to use given that smart people look at the things like climate and not weather.

And I wouldn't want someone who is unsure of things to be swayed by his nonsense.

Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources that remotely have the capacity to support the current world population are nuclear fission and fusion power. There seems to be small factions in the governments of all the developed countries that are providing enough information to keep the funding and progress going, and the future is fusion power with nuclear, hydroelectric, solar of several types, and wind power as players, and we are headed there but that's not where the clickbait is, and it doesn't have a partisan ring to it.

The most ironic thing is, Republicans came up with the term "climate change". They were trying to downplay the more disturbing term "global warming" and started using a less emotional phrase. When global temperatures started to lower for a few years, Democrats quickly switched to the Republican term. Now that the temperature is going back up, everyone is cool with just calling it climate change.

sardonicobserver:The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources that remotely have the capacity to support the current world population are nuclear fission and fusion power. There seems to be small factions in the governments of all the developed countries that are providing enough information to keep the funding and progress going, and the future is fusion power with nuclear, hydroelectric, solar of several types, and wind power as players, and we are headed there but that's not where the clickbait is, and it doesn't have a partisan ring to it.

bigfatbuddhist:sardonicobserver: The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources that remotely have the capacity to support the current world population are nuclear fission and fusion power. There seems to be small factions in the governments of all the developed countries that are providing enough information to keep the funding and progress going, and the future is fusion power with nuclear, hydroelectric, solar of several types, and wind power as players, and we are headed there but that's not where the clickbait is, and it doesn't have a partisan ring to it.

Gubbo:Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

Sean VasDeferens:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

Sean VasDeferens:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

No worries. When the ocean is lapping at the gates of Mar-a-Lago whichever member of the Royal Family is on the throne will simply command the waters to recede.

Actually, as noted above, once enough companies start realizing they're losing money and Disney figures out resorts uninhabitable six months a year are unprofitable all of a sudden this will get a massive government program - probably paid for with cuts to Social Security and a national sales tax on baby formula.

Guybird:Sean VasDeferens: Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

[img.fark.net image 425x276]

Just for clarity's sake:https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usato​day.com/amp/598113001

Sean VasDeferens:UNC_Samurai: We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

Ike, Irene, and Matthew would like to have a word with this pig-farking ignorance.

Get woke https://www.washingtonpost.com/n​ews/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/07/t​he-science-behind-the-u-s-s-strange-hu​rricane-drought-and-its-sudden-end/?no​redirect=on&utm_term=.c76f81dbcc9d

Since 2005, though, we've experienced no major U.S. landfalls until Harvey this year.

Hurricane Hermine: Sept. 2016, this Category 1 storm was the first hurricane to hit Florida since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.• Hurricane Arthur: July 2014, this storm whipped North Carolina's Outer Banks with winds of 100 mph, making it a Category 2.• Hurricane Sandy: Oct. 2012, Superstorm Sandy, the largest Atlantic system on record, slammed into New Jersey. It was the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeastern U.S. in 40 years and the second-costliest in the nation's history.Hurricane Isaac: Aug. 2012, this deadly Category 1 storm hit the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi right around the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.• Hurricane Irene: Sept. 2011, Irene hit North Carolina as a Category 1 storm. The storm caused major flooding in the northeast, and Irene's effects were felt along the entire Eastern seaboard.• Hurricane Ike: Sept. 2008, the last hurricane to strike Texas was Hurricane Ike, a powerful Category 2 storm that caused billions in damage and became the third most costly storm in the U.S., after Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina.• Hurricane Gustav: Sept. 2008, tens of thousands evacuated before this Category 2 storm hit the Louisiana coast, New Orlean's first major storm since Katrina.Hurricane Dolly: July 2008, Dolly made landfall in Texas as a Category 2 storm and gradually weakened to a tropical storm as it progressed.•Hurricane Humberto:Sept. 2007, although initially weak this record-breaking storm intensified rapidly before making landfall in Texas as a Category 1 storm.

Gubbo:grinnel: Hurricane frequency doesn't really seem to show a significant change in the past 150 years. We look to be having a similar pattern to that around 1886http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm

If you're going to talk nonsense, at least argue that we have more hurricanes now than previously because satellite technology picks up storms that would otherwise have been missed.

So, what you're saying is that there could have been far more hurricanes that we didn't know about, and not showing a significant increase in the number of hurricanes with the increase in technology, we could be on a hurricane decline?

Guybird:Sean VasDeferens: UNC_Samurai: We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

Ike, Irene, and Matthew would like to have a word with this pig-farking ignorance.

Get woke https://www.washingtonpost.com/n​ews/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/07/t​he-science-behind-the-u-s-s-strange-hu​rricane-drought-and-its-sudden-end/?no​redirect=on&utm_term=.c76f81dbcc9d

Since 2005, though, we've experienced no major U.S. landfalls until Harvey this year.

Hurricane Hermine: Sept. 2016, this Category 1 storm was the first hurricane to hit Florida since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.• Hurricane Arthur: July 2014, this storm whipped North Carolina's Outer Banks with winds of 100 mph, making it a Category 2.• Hurricane Sandy: Oct. 2012, Superstorm Sandy, the largest Atlantic system on record, slammed into New Jersey. It was the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeastern U.S. in 40 years and the second-costliest in the nation's history.Hurricane Isaac: Aug. 2012, this deadly Category 1 storm hit the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi right around the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.• Hurricane Irene: Sept. 2011, Irene hit North Carolina as a Category 1 storm. The storm caused major flooding in the northeast, and Irene's effects were felt along the entire Eastern seaboard.• Hurricane Ike: Sept. 2008, the last hurricane to strike Texas was Hurricane Ike, a powerful Category 2 storm that caused billions in damage and became the third most costly storm in the U.S., after Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina.• Hurricane Gustav: Sept. 2008, tens of thousands evacuated before this Category 2 storm hit the Louisiana coast, New Orlean's first major storm since Katrina.Hurricane Dolly: July 2008, Dolly made landfall in Texas as a Category 2 storm and gradually weakened to a tropical storm as it progressed.•Hurricane Humberto:Sept. 2007, although initially weak this record-breaking storm intensified rapidly before making landfall in Texas as a Category 1 storm.

Gubbo:Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

grinnel:Gubbo: grinnel: Hurricane frequency doesn't really seem to show a significant change in the past 150 years. We look to be having a similar pattern to that around 1886http://www.stormfax.com/huryear.htm

If you're going to talk nonsense, at least argue that we have more hurricanes now than previously because satellite technology picks up storms that would otherwise have been missed.

So, what you're saying is that there could have been far more hurricanes that we didn't know about, and not showing a significant increase in the number of hurricanes with the increase in technology, we could be on a hurricane decline?

wearetheworld:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

THAT'S one of my favorite tactics of the non-thinking right. So, I ask them: "Do you REALLY think that there's a conspiracy of EVERY climate scientist in the world to lie outright? Why would they do that?"

The funniest answer they give is "it makes more money for climate scientists"...

GoldSpider:There's something to be said about those who want to blame everything under the sun (ha!) on man-made climate change, but here's the bottom line:

[farm5.static.flickr.com image 500x333]

Yeah, I don't get it. Do they really think it's clever and sophisticated to make our energy by digging up precious, irreplaceable chemical resources, and burning them, like cavemen?Converting to replaceable energy is our number one priority as a civilization, if we wish to continue to be one much longer.As it is it will be hard work, and take generations - and that's if everybody gets on board.Even if you don't believe in man made climate change - it's still a survival imperative.How stupid CAN they be?

Gubbo:For the sake of the dumbest people in the world. The US isn't the only country.

The Atlantic isn't the only body of water.

The "make landfall" qualifier is totally irrelevant. It's a meaningless conversational gambit.Whether related death and damage have been rising dramatically - in the US, and elsewhere.How many storms are still at some arbitrary rating when they hit land is a meaningless, artificial red herring - thrown into the conversation to distract, rather than illuminate.

jso2897:Gubbo: For the sake of the dumbest people in the world. The US isn't the only country.

The Atlantic isn't the only body of water.

The "make landfall" qualifier is totally irrelevant. It's a meaningless conversational gambit.Whether related death and damage have been rising dramatically - in the US, and elsewhere.How many storms are still at some arbitrary rating when they hit land is a meaningless, artificial red herring - thrown into the conversation to distract, rather than illuminate.

It's as if the world population is growing, and there are more people around to die because of weather.

Glockenspiel Hero:It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

I tuned in for a few minutes yesterday and....is hurricane/weather denial a new thing?

wearetheworld:jso2897: Gubbo: For the sake of the dumbest people in the world. The US isn't the only country.

The Atlantic isn't the only body of water.

The "make landfall" qualifier is totally irrelevant. It's a meaningless conversational gambit.Whether related death and damage have been rising dramatically - in the US, and elsewhere.How many storms are still at some arbitrary rating when they hit land is a meaningless, artificial red herring - thrown into the conversation to distract, rather than illuminate.

It's as if the world population is growing, and there are more people around to die because of weather.

I bet you actually believe this and haven't done any research on whether it could be true. It's just common sense, right?

holdmybones:Glockenspiel Hero: It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

I tuned in for a few minutes yesterday and....is hurricane/weather denial a new thing?

Gubbo:wearetheworld: Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

wearetheworld:Gubbo: wearetheworld: Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

This seems to be another side effect of Trumper emboldening, the return of long debunked talking points. We had a year or two where there was some actually discussion of long term effects and various strategies for addressing the issue in these threads. Ahh well.

holdmybones:Glockenspiel Hero: It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

I tuned in for a few minutes yesterday and....is hurricane/weather denial a new thing?

Yup. It's the newest troll/rightwing tactic. Call any reporting on a storm as overblown and fearmongering by the MSM for profit.

I have religious family members from that region who have already said they think Panama City was hit by a hurricane because of all the proud people and sinfulness in the area, and that God was trying to make them repent and change there ways. That's right. It wasn't climate change, it was because the Florida Panhandle wasn't religious enough.

No one is denying climate change anymore. We can now officially drop that whole thing.

What people are denying is that humans are responsible. The main reason they are denying this is that regulations affect corporate profits. And these denials are at a national level of multiple HUGE countries.

The biggest problem with all of this is that the US is only one contributor. And we are doing some things to help. But that says nothing about the greatest contributors to the problem in other countries. And it makes matters far worse that when American companies are stifled too much by regulation, they move their pollution to another country that is more pollution friendly.

If you don't know that this is the problem than you haven't been paying attention.

Smoking GNU:holdmybones: Glockenspiel Hero: It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

I tuned in for a few minutes yesterday and....is hurricane/weather denial a new thing?

Yup. It's the newest troll/rightwing tactic. Call any reporting on a storm as overblown and fearmongering by the MSM for profit.

Wild how they can handwave everything away with 'the jews tricked us into believing that happened", which is what they really mean by the 'msm' or 'Soros'.

Nevermind that, tho. Nobody tell them about the jewgold that the Jews hid behind our eyesockets that can only be reached if you dig around your eyeballs with a knife.

winedrinkingman:I have religious family members from that region who have already said they think Panama City was hit by a hurricane because of all the proud people and sinfulness in the area, and that God was trying to make them repent and change there ways. That's right. It wasn't climate change, it was because the Florida Panhandle wasn't religious enough.

wearetheworld:Gubbo: wearetheworld: Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

THAT'S one of my favorite tactics of the non-thinking right. So, I ask them: "Do you REALLY think that there's a conspiracy of EVERY climate scientist in the world to lie outright? Why would they do that?"

The funniest answer they give is "it makes more money for climate scientists"...

It deteriorates from there...

My cousin is a climate scientist (he would cringe sooooo hard if he heard me use that title) and is reaches and does research at a college where, I am quite confident, he makes about $75k. This argument from the right is farking hilarious - especially those in the energy sector (who get bonuses in excess of $75k).

Smoking GNU:holdmybones: Glockenspiel Hero: It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

I tuned in for a few minutes yesterday and....is hurricane/weather denial a new thing?

Yup. It's the newest troll/rightwing tactic. Call any reporting on a storm as overblown and fearmongering by the MSM for profit.

Bizarre. I saw this from the single trumper left in my life after the NC hurricane. Instead of the usual mocking weather reporters and the Weather Channel he turned it into some weird conspiracy thing that included Russia and anything negative about trump.

durbnpoisn:No one is denying climate change anymore. We can now officially drop that whole thing.

What people are denying is that humans are responsible. The main reason they are denying this is that regulations affect corporate profits. And these denials are at a national level of multiple HUGE countries.

The biggest problem with all of this is that the US is only one contributor. And we are doing some things to help. But that says nothing about the greatest contributors to the problem in other countries. And it makes matters far worse that when American companies are stifled too much by regulation, they move their pollution to another country that is more pollution friendly.

If you don't know that this is the problem than you haven't been paying attention.

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

This. We were warned that, after Katrina, every hurricane would be a Katrina and there would be many more of them. It hasn't happened. How much of the current warming is man-made and how much is natural change is unknown. Climate change has been politicized and some people are getting a lot of use out of it.

cameroncrazy1984:wearetheworld: jso2897: Gubbo: For the sake of the dumbest people in the world. The US isn't the only country.

The Atlantic isn't the only body of water.

The "make landfall" qualifier is totally irrelevant. It's a meaningless conversational gambit.Whether related death and damage have been rising dramatically - in the US, and elsewhere.How many storms are still at some arbitrary rating when they hit land is a meaningless, artificial red herring - thrown into the conversation to distract, rather than illuminate.

It's as if the world population is growing, and there are more people around to die because of weather.

I bet you actually believe this and haven't done any research on whether it could be true. It's just common sense, right?

Lucky LaRue:Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

I always liked this analogy ...

Getting a freakishly strong hurricane is a bit like taking a shot at a basket from a distance. Climate change allows you to move closer to the hoop. You're not guaranteed to make a shot when you standing directly in front of the basket, but you've got a much better chance.

Yeah but the thing you're forgetting is if we get enough people to immigrate north we can tip the flat disc that is earth away from the sun, and cool things down, while at the same time heating up south america and sticking it to the brown people ! Keep your eyes on the prize here dude. I rest my case.

durbnpoisn:No one is denying climate change anymore. We can now officially drop that whole thing.

What people are denying is that humans are responsible. The main reason they are denying this is that regulations affect corporate profits. And these denials are at a national level of multiple HUGE countries.

The biggest problem with all of this is that the US is only one contributor. And we are doing some things to help. But that says nothing about the greatest contributors to the problem in other countries. And it makes matters far worse that when American companies are stifled too much by regulation, they move their pollution to another country that is more pollution friendly.

If you don't know that this is the problem than you haven't been paying attention.

I'm a Climate Scientist. Could have gone the energy sector, sold my soul and gotten that sweet lambo and Climate Scientist groupie sex. Could have gone college research and gotten that cool ramien instant soup bowl money and Climate Research Assistance sex but I got in to ladders research. Only benefit: Send RA Julie up a ten footer. "I know you're wearing a skirt and we're all profession dudes holding our phones, but it's for science. So climb it, lady. Climb it!"

wearetheworld:cameroncrazy1984: wearetheworld: jso2897: Gubbo: For the sake of the dumbest people in the world. The US isn't the only country.

The Atlantic isn't the only body of water.

The "make landfall" qualifier is totally irrelevant. It's a meaningless conversational gambit.Whether related death and damage have been rising dramatically - in the US, and elsewhere.How many storms are still at some arbitrary rating when they hit land is a meaningless, artificial red herring - thrown into the conversation to distract, rather than illuminate.

It's as if the world population is growing, and there are more people around to die because of weather.

I bet you actually believe this and haven't done any research on whether it could be true. It's just common sense, right?

winedrinkingman:I have religious family members from that region who have already said they think Panama City was hit by a hurricane because of all the proud people and sinfulness in the area, and that God was trying to make them repent and change there ways. That's right. It wasn't climate change, it was because the Florida Panhandle wasn't religious enough.

I... can't smart this because there's secondhand derp in it, and I can't funny it because it's not funny.

Lee451:sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

This. We were warned that, after Katrina, every hurricane would be a Katrina and there would be many more of them. It hasn't happened. How much of the current warming is man-made and how much is natural change is unknown. Climate change has been politicized and some people are getting a lot of use out of it.

You're correct. The world thinks it's a problem. One political party denies it.

Madman drummers bummers:winedrinkingman: I have religious family members from that region who have already said they think Panama City was hit by a hurricane because of all the proud people and sinfulness in the area, and that God was trying to make them repent and change there ways. That's right. It wasn't climate change, it was because the Florida Panhandle wasn't religious enough.

I... can't smart this because there's secondhand derp in it, and I can't funny it because it's not funny.

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources that remotely have the capacity to support the current world population are nuclear fission and fusion power. There seems to be small factions in the governments of all the developed countries that are providing enough information to keep the funding and progress going, and the future is fusion power with nuclear, hydroelectric, solar of several types, and wind power as players, and we are headed there but that's not where the clickbait is, and it doesn't have a partisan ring to it.

One, nobody wants to do anything about the climate change issue unless they can make money off of it. But even if they really didn't go for the money first, is there really anything we can do about it?

Two, the climate is always changing. Is it changing faster because of man? Who knows? The people in the US are too busy trying to turn a profit off of it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the earth is warming. I just have no idea what's causing it or if it's even something we should try to change. The earth goes through warm and cold cycles. Maybe it's like geology in that 10K years is the blink of an eye. So then we're stuck with stupid politicians trying to blame the democrats or republicans for everything. Well, that's part of the problem, it shouldn't be a democrat problem or a republican problem, it should be "What's best for the world". And of course that'll never happen because everyone is trying to make a buck off of the climate change issue.

So then we're stuck with many people like myself just giving up on the whole thing. I've installed LEDs, burn almost no petroleum products (electric cars rock but gas mowers are still better than electric ones), increased the amount of insulation in my house to conserve energy, recycle as much as possible, reduced my waste stream to where I have one bag of trash every two months and all of the other tree hugger stuff. But I'm mostly doing it for myself with the pleasant thought in the back of my head that it's good for the planet too.

Instead using unnamed peers to agree with a predetermined conclusion, try using the scientific method. Predictive models can't predict all the variables that are unpredictable. Are those peer reviewers also going to review all the carbon tax returns?

One, nobody wants to do anything about the climate change issue unless they can make money off of it. But even if they really didn't go for the money first, is there really anything we can do about it?

Two, the climate is always changing. Is it changing faster because of man? Who knows? The people in the US are too busy trying to turn a profit off of it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the earth is warming. I just have no idea what's causing it or if it's even something we should try to change. The earth goes through warm and cold cycles. Maybe it's like geology in that 10K years is the blink of an eye. So then we're stuck with stupid politicians trying to blame the democrats or republicans for everything. Well, that's part of the problem, it shouldn't be a democrat problem or a republican problem, it should be "What's best for the world". And of course that'll never happen because everyone is trying to make a buck off of the climate change issue.

So then we're stuck with many people like myself just giving up on the whole thing. I've installed LEDs, burn almost no petroleum products (electric cars rock but gas mowers are still better than electric ones), increased the amount of insulation in my house to conserve energy, recycle as much as possible, reduced my waste stream to where I have one bag of trash every two months and all of the other tree hugger stuff. But I'm mostly doing it for myself with the pleasant thought in the back of my head that it's good for the planet too.

Instead using unnamed peers to agree with a predetermined conclusion, try using the scientific method. Predictive models can't predict all the variables that are unpredictable. Are those peer reviewers also going to review all the carbon tax returns?

Instead using unnamed peers to agree with a predetermined conclusion, try using the scientific method. Predictive models can't predict all the variables that are unpredictable. Are those peer reviewers also going to review all the carbon tax returns?

Sean VasDeferens:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

Gubbo:Sean VasDeferens: Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

Sean VasDeferens:UNC_Samurai: We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

Ike, Irene, and Matthew would like to have a word with this pig-farking ignorance.

Get woke https://www.washingtonpost.com/n​ews/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/07/t​he-science-behind-the-u-s-s-strange-hu​rricane-drought-and-its-sudden-end/?no​redirect=on&utm_term=.c76f81dbcc9d

I don't care if some putz wrote a story about it. I was in Ike in 2008 and my dad sure as shiat remembers Sandy in 12. Not to mention Gustav, Irene or Isaac.

Yes, there were no storms that made landfall in the US in 09 or 10. But to keep harping this insane talking point means you're either just blatantly lying or incredibly stupid, and either way you should stop.

Natalie Portmanteau:Gubbo: Sean VasDeferens: Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

I often forget how the USA is the only country in the world.

It's also not true. Link

Although, that is the NOAA's list, so the science is all corrupt or something.

Oh I know it's not true. I just like making fun of that lie that America is the whole world.

Guybird:Sean VasDeferens: UNC_Samurai: We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

Ike, Irene, and Matthew would like to have a word with this pig-farking ignorance.

Get woke https://www.washingtonpost.com/n​ews/energy-environment/wp/2017/09/07/t​he-science-behind-the-u-s-s-strange-hu​rricane-drought-and-its-sudden-end/?no​redirect=on&utm_term=.c76f81dbcc9d

Since 2005, though, we've experienced no major U.S. landfalls until Harvey this year.

Hurricane Hermine: Sept. 2016, this Category 1 storm was the first hurricane to hit Florida since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.• Hurricane Arthur: July 2014, this storm whipped North Carolina's Outer Banks with winds of 100 mph, making it a Category 2.• Hurricane Sandy: Oct. 2012, Superstorm Sandy, the largest Atlantic system on record, slammed into New Jersey. It was the deadliest hurricane to hit the northeastern U.S. in 40 years and the second-costliest in the nation's history.Hurricane Isaac: Aug. 2012, this deadly Category 1 storm hit the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi right around the seventh anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.• Hurricane Irene: Sept. 2011, Irene hit North Carolina as a Category 1 storm. The storm caused major flooding in the northeast, and Irene's effects were felt along the entire Eastern seaboard.• Hurricane Ike: Sept. 2008, the last hurricane to strike Texas was Hurricane Ike, a powerful Category 2 storm that caused billions in damage and became the third most costly storm in the U.S., after Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina.• Hurricane Gustav: Sept. 2008, tens of thousands evacuated before this Category 2 storm hit the Louisiana coast, New Orlean's first major storm since Katrina.Hurricane Dolly: July 2008, Dolly made landfall in Texas as a Category 2 storm and gradually weakened to a tropical storm as it progressed.•Hurricane Humberto:Sept. 2007, although initially weak this record-breaking storm intensified rapidly before making landfall in Texas as a Category 1 storm.

Lucky LaRue:Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

FTA: "It's true that we can't definitively link the damage from any one hurricane (or drought or forest fire) to rising carbon emissions. But think of it as playing with loaded dice: A double six might have occurred anyway, but much less often."Seems like a pretty solid analogy to me.

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

Gubbo:gar1013: If you believe that climate change is caused by human activities; and

If you believe that the activities of the average American are what's really contributing to climate change; then

Shouldn't we have tighter immigration control?

Since people that don't live in the US don't contribute as much to climate change, we should try to keep as many of those people as humanly possible from coming here and increasing climate change.

Environmental groups used to have positions on immigration like this until it became politically incorrect for them to do so.

While there is a huge amount of competition in this thread. I'm nominating this for stupid post of the day.

Dear god

That shiat needs to come with a warning label. I'm glad I don't need to brain too hard today, that sucked about 20 IQ points right outta my head, and that on top of the slow leak from all the previous shiatposts...

cameroncrazy1984:durbnpoisn: No one is denying climate change anymore. We can now officially drop that whole thing.

What people are denying is that humans are responsible. The main reason they are denying this is that regulations affect corporate profits. And these denials are at a national level of multiple HUGE countries.

The biggest problem with all of this is that the US is only one contributor. And we are doing some things to help. But that says nothing about the greatest contributors to the problem in other countries. And it makes matters far worse that when American companies are stifled too much by regulation, they move their pollution to another country that is more pollution friendly.

If you don't know that this is the problem than you haven't been paying attention.

So did you just miss the whole Paris agreement thing or

I did not. And you must have missed the point of my post.It's too little too late. Plus, the US has backed out of it.

I'd bookmark this thread as a beautiful example of derpish rwnj talking points & the incredible need to dress up idiocy in pseudoscientific terms, but the herpaderp is strong enough to require a prescription.

I believe in man made global warming. But many espousing the climate change message have a certain religious zealotry to them.

For one, they like to prophesy. I think the message gets muddled with the ongoing series of predictions of imminent demise that never materialize.

I won't list them here but a simple Google search will show you how many global warming predictions have been false. I think another one came out this week stating that we only have 10 years left.

Also, are humans just not another group of animals on this planet? Would you morally judge ants for building an ant colony? Maybe global warming is just another evolution of this planet. Maybe this version of humanity's time is over. Maybe things should change. Most people in here don't seem happy and are in a current state of rage about some crap or another. What makes humans so unique that we have some morally justification to "save the planet"? Did god tell you this?

And many zealots for climate change would like to see the "deniers" put to death. Just read the comments in here. According to them, if you don't believe their message then you should die.

I think the problem selling climate change has been the rhetoric and that every solution that's been put on the table seems to involve a government forced transfer of wealth.

In the end I think capitalism (which I personally believe to be humanities most natural state) that got us into this mess may find us a way out of it. An example would be the recycling industry. You can turn a profit while making the planet greener. And automated electric cars and working from home could help too.

But I could be wrong. On the other side of things, I'd like all meat products to be taxed heavily so that having a steak dinner is something the average family only maybe does once every couple months. And fast-food restaurant should never sell beef. You could easily replace the stuff in there food with vegie meat and no one would tell the difference with as much crap they put on it.

So next time you ready to get in someone face, predict an event 10 years in the future, tell someone they should die if they don't believe, congrats you've found god.

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

Thank god someone here can think for themselves instead of making this a partisan issue. Lots of shouting people down here and not much intelligent discourse until I read your post. I have read both sides of this issue recently and there is no hard science (proof) that shows an increase in hurricane activity or strength attributed to global climate change. There are suggestions and computer models and educated guesses galore but nobody actually knows how much impact humans have on the global climate. You cannot deny climate change because climate has and always will change it will never stay the same. In the eternal words of Douglas Adams "Don't Panic".

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

ArinTheLost:sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only ...

Manmade catastrophic climate change is indisputable. It's a fact. We know what's causing climate change; it's human carbon emissions. It threatens to destroy the entire global ecosystem. You can sit here and play faux intellectual with your "both sides are bad" and "nobody really knows" bullshiat but at the end of the day, you're just showing off your ignorance.Honestly, reading comments like yours is infuriating because there is so much evidence that back up climate science that the only reason to have any doubt is laziness or willful ignorance.

Smoking GNU:winedrinkingman: I have religious family members from that region who have already said they think Panama City was hit by a hurricane because of all the proud people and sinfulness in the area, and that God was trying to make them repent and change there ways. That's right. It wasn't climate change, it was because the Florida Panhandle wasn't religious enough.

Isn't that always their reasoning?

Turn it around on them.

Tell them it is the fault of the hypocrites who claim to be christian but don't follow his teachings about pacifism, non violence, the fact you should gladly pay taxes (render unto Caesar thing), etc., etc., etc.

God is punishing you hypocrites for being a Christian In Name Only.

Basically tell them if y'all weren't CINOs, this would not have happened.

Oh, and if y'all actually set a good example by how you talk and act, some of the non believers might just be inclined to convert.

sardonicobserver:The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate".

So, you believe the data on climate change has been deceptively doctored as part of a conspiracy to do...things... And as proof, you provide data that has long been proven to have not only been deceptively doctored, but also selectively taken out of context?

Well... Our days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

Let's save the earth and recycle!Sounds great until you realize that the recycling companies are mostly inChina which just shut down importing such stuff as a direct result of D2S's tarrifs.Just hears a story on the radio how some cities are just shuttering their recycling programs - there's nowhere to send the stuff to.Now you're nodding and asking why there aren't businesses here in the USA doing this? China doesn't give a flying fark about the environment, that's why.If we tried this here with our regulations we would have to pay the companies to take our stuff.

ArinTheLost:Thank god someone here can think for themselves instead of making this a partisan issue. Lots of shouting people down here and not much intelligent discourse until I read your post. I have read both sides of this issue recently and there is no hard science (proof) that shows an increase in hurricane activity or strength attributed to global climate change. There are suggestions and computer models and educated guesses galore but nobody actually knows how much impact humans have on the global climate. You cannot deny climate change because climate has and always will change it will never stay the same. In the eternal words of Douglas Adams "Don't Panic".

FYI, Douglas Adams was a hard-core environmentalist who not only wrote books about the need to act now in order to save the environment, but also included a variety of things in H2G2 (the source of your quote) mocking people who are willfully ignorant about such things. Please don't use a random quote of his from a work of fiction to justify your ignorance and inaction on a topic that he cared deeply about.

giantmeteor:We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

Which Koch brother are you?

What's truly hilarious about this is that the Koch brothers actually hired a real scientist back in 2010 to prop up the talking points we keep seeing above. Richard Muller spent two years and a couple of million dollars looking over all the evidence for climate change and correcting for all the bad data and uncounted error sources that our posters have been talking about this entire thread.

After all that effort, he came back to announce that those terrible, sloppy, data-faking climate scientists were, well, 100% correct about the Earth warming. After a little while longer he announced they were also 100% correct about it being human-caused.

Meanwhile, the derpsters are busy congratulating themselves on having an intelligent discussion while the rest of us are hysterical. This thread is the farking poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Given the choice of believing a NYT columnist or a meteorologist who studies hurricanes with an excellent track record predicting these storms, I'll go with Joe Bastardi over some NYT columnist with a deadline.

I actually believe humans are having an impact on global climate, yet the harder the zealots rage and pout and scream that the end is near, the more I just sit back and laugh at their childish petulant ridiculousness. The more reasonable among us realize that there's no magic bullet, one-size-fits-all solution, and we'll simply have to continue to improvise, adapt, and engineer, just as we've been doing as a species for thousands of years.

Totally Sharky Complete:When a record cold snap proves global warming is a hoax but reminded by Fark weather and climate are two different things.

Oh look, someone who can't tell the difference between "Hey, it's cold today! Global warming is hoax!" and "Today hundreds of scientists signed a letter of agreement stating that the statistically significant increase in number and intensity of hurricanes is at least partly caused by global warming"

gretzkyscores:I actually believe humans are having an impact on global climate, yet the harder the zealots rage and pout and scream that the end is near, the more I just sit back and laugh at their childish petulant ridiculousness. The more reasonable among us realize that there's no magic bullet, one-size-fits-all solution, and we'll simply have to continue to improvise, adapt, and engineer, just as we've been doing as a species for thousands of years.

Unlike the previous thousands of years, we have the technology to wipe out all life with an afternoon's work.

It would be harder to deny climate change if there was a year of no hurricanes. Hurricanes are part of the south east's climate, and there is no way to tell if a hurricane is scheduled, or because of climate change.

To properly evaluate this, we have to wait a year or two, then run a nice statistical analysis, look at standard deviations, and then make sense of the data. A heat wave or a blizzard doesn't prove anything for anyone other than you know what the weather is outside. If you don't know how to calculate standard deviations, you should have went to high school, that one is on you.

Momzilla59:Let's save the earth and recycle!Sounds great until you realize that the recycling companies are mostly inChina which just shut down importing such stuff as a direct result of D2S's tarrifs.Just hears a story on the radio how some cities are just shuttering their recycling programs - there's nowhere to send the stuff to.Now you're nodding and asking why there aren't businesses here in the USA doing this? China doesn't give a flying fark about the environment, that's why.If we tried this here with our regulations we would have to pay the companies to take our stuff.

guestguy: No one saw this coming...NO ONE, I say!

Now we know D2S' Fark handle.

China doesn't give a flying fark about the environment...which is why they have recycling companies..and why they are investing more on renewable energy and mass transit than us..

StrikitRich:Given the choice of believing a NYT columnist or a meteorologist who studies hurricanes with an excellent track record predicting these storms, I'll go with Joe Bastardi over some NYT columnist with a deadline.

gretzkyscores:I actually believe humans are having an impact on global climate, yet the harder the zealots rage and pout and scream that the end is near, the more I just sit back and laugh at their childish petulant ridiculousness. The more reasonable among us realize that there's no magic bullet, one-size-fits-all solution, and we'll simply have to continue to improvise, adapt, and engineer, just as we've been doing as a species for thousands of years.

OldJames:It would be harder to deny climate change if there was a year of no hurricanes. Hurricanes are part of the south east's climate, and there is no way to tell if a hurricane is scheduled, or because of climate change.

To properly evaluate this, we have to wait a year or two, then run a nice statistical analysis, look at standard deviations, and then make sense of the data. A heat wave or a blizzard doesn't prove anything for anyone other than you know what the weather is outside. If you don't know how to calculate standard deviations, you should have went to high school, that one is on you.

groppet:Summoner101: bigfatbuddhist: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

Well, peer reviewed analysis didn't get them off their butts...

Like most Republicans, it's only when it directly affects them that there's any chance for change. Typically, that ends up in demands for handouts from the Fed though. If an actual change in thought occurs, the empathy/sympathy will be narrowly defined to their exact circumstances.

Now even some conservatives in the insurance industry are starting to come around to climate change. Must be messing with their bottom line or something.

You should read about the insurance response to Katrina in 2005. Unless you have enough money to sue them for breach of contract, they are not going to pay for a mass disaster. It turns out most Americans don't have $150,000 to do that.Florida is a key GOP state, so I am not too worried. "The Villages" will be fully insured at no premium cost by Trump and Co.

Interceptor1:One, nobody wants to do anything about the climate change issue unless they can make money off of it. But even if they really didn't go for the money first, is there really anything we can do about it?

Two, the climate is always changing. Is it changing faster because of man? Who knows? The people in the US are too busy trying to turn a profit off of it.

1) The majority of votes in 2016 were against drumpf. Careful with your generalizations.

cameroncrazy1984:OldJames: It would be harder to deny climate change if there was a year of no hurricanes. Hurricanes are part of the south east's climate, and there is no way to tell if a hurricane is scheduled, or because of climate change.

To properly evaluate this, we have to wait a year or two, then run a nice statistical analysis, look at standard deviations, and then make sense of the data. A heat wave or a blizzard doesn't prove anything for anyone other than you know what the weather is outside. If you don't know how to calculate standard deviations, you should have went to high school, that one is on you.

Gubbo:I think a baseline for if I should listen to you on climate change is if you know what month the Earth is closest to the sun.

I fully agree that if someone can't correctly answer a 7th grade astronomy question, their opinions on the subject sucks and they should feel bad for sucking.

My thoughts on "Climate Change/Global Warming/Earth Heating...." There are MANY different factors that contribute to variances in the Earth's climate. External factors: the elliptical orbit around the sun, the rotational axis, thermal density differences between land vs. water, sun spots, cloud cover; one can even contribute the compositional layers of the Earth being affected by solar radiation, and planetary magnetism and the fluid dynamics at play. An abnormality could drastically change regional climate, shifting to other areas of the Earth and causing an ongoing daisy-chain of events.Humans: Of course we're somewhat culpable. Greenhouse gasses (I'm staring at you, 3rd worlders), development (city heat islands, deforestation, crops), Environmental (Ozone, smog) and even the added heat of more actual people being on Earth also contribute. Cow farts!

In the grand scheme of things, it's difficult (impossible) to actually compute how much Man and Women (equal rights!) affects the global climate. Naturally the Earth heats and cools off, factoring in human actions (perceived good or bad) cannot be reliably done.

/too many people, start culling//what about the storm on Jupiter?///The periapsis is in January

sardonicobserver:What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

JESUS CHRIST. I am SOOOO sick of idiot men who may as well be called Dunning-Kreuger lecturing me about MY farkING FIELD. You do not know what you're talking about, so why don't you just shut up and learn something from someone smarter than you?

Email gate turned up nothing. Yes, one guy had a "trick" to get noise out of the data and yes, it turned out to be a legit thing. I haven't googled "hide the decline" but I can assure you it's BS.

IF THE MODELS ARE WRONG, WHY ARE WE SEEING SO MUCH (a) ice melt at the poles, (b) extreme highs, and (c) more tropical storms, ALL OF WHICH ARE PREDICTED BY THE MODELS?!!?

Jesus Christ.

Look, the models are not perfect but they're actually pretty good. Go read "The Signal and the Noise" by Nate Silver (not a climate scientist so maybe you'll believe him?) if you don't believe me.

As much as you tire me out, at the end of the day, your idiot opinion doesn't matter. You got exactly what you want (no meaningful work to reduce emissions in the US) and you're already seeing the effects. If you weren't an idiot, you'd devest of any coastal property and make sure you've got a good water supply by now. And probably try to live close to the amenities you need so you can walk/bike if necessary.

Sniffers Row:Gubbo: I think a baseline for if I should listen to you on climate change is if you know what month the Earth is closest to the sun.

I fully agree that if someone can't correctly answer a 7th grade astronomy question, their opinions on the subject sucks and they should feel bad for sucking.

My thoughts on "Climate Change/Global Warming/Earth Heating...." There are MANY different factors that contribute to variances in the Earth's climate. External factors: the elliptical orbit around the sun, the rotational axis, thermal density differences between land vs. water, sun spots, cloud cover; one can even contribute the compositional layers of the Earth being affected by solar radiation, and planetary magnetism and the fluid dynamics at play. An abnormality could drastically change regional climate, shifting to other areas of the Earth and causing an ongoing daisy-chain of events.Humans: Of course we're somewhat culpable. Greenhouse gasses (I'm staring at you, 3rd worlders), development (city heat islands, deforestation, crops), Environmental (Ozone, smog) and even the added heat of more actual people being on Earth also contribute. Cow farts!

In the grand scheme of things, it's difficult (impossible) to actually compute how much Man and Women (equal rights!) affects the global climate. Naturally the Earth heats and cools off, factoring in human actions (perceived good or bad) cannot be reliably done.

/too many people, start culling//what about the storm on Jupiter?///The periapsis is in January

ArinTheLost:sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only ...

Some simpler things are very likely true, like higher temperatures leading to more hurricanes and bigger ones. Our measurements show that we are about 1 F warmer than a couple of decades ago, and it's unclear how much effect this will have. It's also unclear how much effect industrial carbon emissions have on global warming - correlation is not causation, and all the logic I've seen is based on estimates of unknown accuracy about CO2 concentrations during climate swings, with no hint of where that CO2 came from. In particular, does higher temperature increase protozoan and animal activity, thus perturbing the organic carbon cycle, are we talking about limestone in subduction layers causing associated volcanic action to release all that stored up carbonate as CO2 and calcium compounds? If there is an important effect available by, say, stopping the fires in Brazil that contribute so much CO2, or decreasing our beef consumption to decrease the CO2-laden flatulence that is also a huge contributor, we don't have compelling data because climate science was politicized and corrupted in the 1990's.

What about investing in CO2 scrubbers in power plants (even natural gas fired, not just coal) and using the CO2 to feed adjacent algae ponds? Without accurate, reliable, scientific information we can't get the incentive to do that kind of research.

For those of you whose ox I gored, please understand that I'm actually trying to throw out ideas. Here's a bit of humor:

OldJames:cameroncrazy1984: OldJames: It would be harder to deny climate change if there was a year of no hurricanes. Hurricanes are part of the south east's climate, and there is no way to tell if a hurricane is scheduled, or because of climate change.

To properly evaluate this, we have to wait a year or two, then run a nice statistical analysis, look at standard deviations, and then make sense of the data. A heat wave or a blizzard doesn't prove anything for anyone other than you know what the weather is outside. If you don't know how to calculate standard deviations, you should have went to high school, that one is on you.

Sniffers Row:Gubbo: I think a baseline for if I should listen to you on climate change is if you know what month the Earth is closest to the sun.

I fully agree that if someone can't correctly answer a 7th grade astronomy question, their opinions on the subject sucks and they should feel bad for sucking.

My thoughts on "Climate Change/Global Warming/Earth Heating...." There are MANY different factors that contribute to variances in the Earth's climate. External factors: the elliptical orbit around the sun, the rotational axis, thermal density differences between land vs. water, sun spots, cloud cover; one can even contribute the compositional layers of the Earth being affected by solar radiation, and planetary magnetism and the fluid dynamics at play. An abnormality could drastically change regional climate, shifting to other areas of the Earth and causing an ongoing daisy-chain of events.Humans: Of course we're somewhat culpable. Greenhouse gasses (I'm staring at you, 3rd worlders), development (city heat islands, deforestation, crops), Environmental (Ozone, smog) and even the added heat of more actual people being on Earth also contribute. Cow farts!

In the grand scheme of things, it's difficult (impossible) to actually compute how much Man and Women (equal rights!) affects the global climate. Naturally the Earth heats and cools off, factoring in human actions (perceived good or bad) cannot be reliably done.

/too many people, start culling//what about the storm on Jupiter?///The periapsis is in January

Uh, no, it's not impossible at all. Maybe learn this thing called "math"

sardonicobserver:ArinTheLost: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only ...

Some simpler things are very likely true, like higher temperatures leading to more hurricanes and bigger ones. Our measurements show that we are about 1 F warmer than a couple of decades ago, and it's unclear how much effect this will have. It's also unclear how much effect industrial carbon emissions have on global warming - correlation is not causation, and all the logic I've seen is based on estimates of unknown accuracy about CO2 concentrations during climate swings, with no hint of where that CO2 came from. In particular, does higher temperature increase protozoan and animal activity, thus perturbing the organic carbon cycle, are we talking about limestone in subduction layers causing associated volcanic action to release all that stored up carbonate as CO2 and calcium compounds? If there is an important effect available by, say, stopping the fires in Brazil that contribute so much CO2, or decreasing our beef consumption to decrease the CO2-laden flatulence that is also a huge contributor, we don't have compelling data because climate science was politicized and corrupted in the 1990's.

What about investing in CO2 scrubbers in power plants (even natural gas fired, not just coal) and using the CO2 to feed adjacent algae ponds? Without accurate, reliable, scientific information we can't get the incentive to do that kind of research.

For those of you whose ox I gored, please understand that I'm actually trying to throw out ideas. Here's a bit of humor:[Link][img.fark.net image 850x414]

Sniffers Row:Gubbo: I think a baseline for if I should listen to you on climate change is if you know what month the Earth is closest to the sun.

I fully agree that if someone can't correctly answer a 7th grade astronomy question, their opinions on the subject sucks and they should feel bad for sucking.

My thoughts on "Climate Change/Global Warming/Earth Heating...." There are MANY different factors that contribute to variances in the Earth's climate. External factors: the elliptical orbit around the sun, the rotational axis, thermal density differences between land vs. water, sun spots, cloud cover; one can even contribute the compositional layers of the Earth being affected by solar radiation, and planetary magnetism and the fluid dynamics at play. An abnormality could drastically change regional climate, shifting to other areas of the Earth and causing an ongoing daisy-chain of events.Humans: Of course we're somewhat culpable. Greenhouse gasses (I'm staring at you, 3rd worlders), development (city heat islands, deforestation, crops), Environmental (Ozone, smog) and even the added heat of more actual people being on Earth also contribute. Cow farts!

In the grand scheme of things, it's difficult (impossible) to actually compute how much Man and Women (equal rights!) affects the global climate. Naturally the Earth heats and cools off, factoring in human actions (perceived good or bad) cannot be reliably done.

Really? It's impossible? Or are you just completely ignorant of the science?

This is a good look at how the debate here in the US devolved. This is the same thing that happened to a lot of other subjects starting at the same time. The talk of reasonable action on climate change ramped up to the insane nuttery you'll see as talking points by the derpers in this thread. In a decade or so reality will be even more noticable and harder to deny but it will be too late to do much about it and they still will be ranting nutty shiat. Might be new as their masters may be feeding them a new line but it will still be just as dumb. Propaganda works.

It's funny, I don't see any climate change deniers in RL. I only see them on the Internet in forums such as this one. Industries hire PR people whose full-time job is to push the industry's agenda on social media. They write posts that sound intelligent and fact-based, but when you research the stuff they say it's all lies.

Climate change is real. Molecular signatures of the carbon atom prove that the increase of carbon in our atmosphere is from humans burning dead dinosaurs.

It isn't the scientists that are lying about climate change. It's the oil and coal industry and the politicians they bribe that are lying about climate change.

sardonicobserver:ArinTheLost: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energ ...

Cynicism101:IF THE MODELS ARE WRONG, WHY ARE WE SEEING SO MUCH (a) ice melt at the poles, (b) extreme highs, and (c) more tropical storms, ALL OF WHICH ARE PREDICTED BY THE MODELS?!!?

I thought the models said that there were going to be fewer hurricanes, but they were going to be higher intensity, due to climate change? There was something else (ocean currents in the Atlantic) that was suppose to be increasing the number of hurricanes for the next 15 years or something?

Cynicism101:sardonicobserver: What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

JESUS CHRIST. I am SOOOO sick of idiot men who may as well be called Dunning-Kreuger lecturing me about MY farkING FIELD. You do not know what you're talking about, so why don't you just shut up and learn something from someone smarter than you?

Email gate turned up nothing. Yes, one guy had a "trick" to get noise out of the data and yes, it turned out to be a legit thing. I haven't googled "hide the decline" but I can assure you it's BS.

IF THE MODELS ARE WRONG, WHY ARE WE SEEING SO ...

The US is doing more to reduce greenhouse gases and other manufactured environmental hazards than anyone, and not just CO2. Our emissions requirements are met by all vehicle manufacturers worldwide, as our our rollover of fluorocarbons to less harmful types (Freon R12 to Freon R134a in small air conditioners, for example). Our innovations in clean power and industry are available to everyone that is willing to use them.

If you haven't googled "hide the decline" and read the summaries of peer-reviewed papers, you might want to add that to your personal information repertoire. Truth isn't political, it's truth. And, if it is your field, you should take advantage of an opportunity to broaden your information base whenever reasonably possible.

The models are what they are. The problem is the assumptions and data used in the models, and selection and interpretation of results. For a quick primer on climate model prediction accuracy for the non-climate-scientists, do a web search on "spaghetti models" to show the amazing variety of hurricane path predictions using the same available data. Even the National Hurricane Center varies the position of a hurricane a few days hence by hundreds of miles with every day or so. If they can't tell within a thousand miles or so where the epicenter of a storm will be a week from now, how reliable are they expected to be in extrapolating anything a millennia or so? As far as assumptions, archaic relations between fossil bubbles CO2 percentage and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post.

giantmeteor:We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energ ...

Oh jesus... the derp just got turned up to 11

Again, start here:https://www.iter.org/ITER is one artifact of international cooperation in development of a prototype fusion power plant. You can use this site as a portal to find most or all of the peer-reviewed articles and books on fusion.

sardonicobserver:ArinTheLost: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energ ...

It's hilarious. It would be SO EASY to just accept what people who know more than you know. Instead, you have to create this mythology. And believe it.

holdmybones:Glockenspiel Hero: It was absurd last night- the wunderground hurricane blog discussion was completely overrun with these idiots, all spouting their Fox News approved talking points just like Lucky Lamoron above.

They all sound so authoritative if you know nothing about the science, and they are so deep into the Dunning Kruger hole they have no idea how stupid they sound to the weather nerds on that forum.

And yes, Lucky, we all understand the difference between weather and climate. Perhaps you'd like to discuss ocean heat content over time and the effect of rising sea temperatures on tropical storm formation?

I tuned in for a few minutes yesterday and....is hurricane/weather denial a new thing?

"It's raining like a motherfarker outside; trees blowing down, four feet of water in the streets."Er, no it's not. /turns off TV

we do? took about one week to install my solar. will have powerwall 2.0 batteries shortly, my house was already all electric, and hopefully get myself a leaf or another plug in electric vehicle.....sure while I can't entirely get off fossil fuels (v8 truck is not going all electric anytime soon...though not against going bio diesel), I will drop my usage of them by close to 98%.

so that road map was about 3 months for me to drop 75 or more percent of my fossil fuel use.

Gubbo:sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

beverly8:Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

Here's a olive branch to all you staunch defenders of the GOP's position that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax designed to make you all look foolish:

YOU'VE WON. We've done basically nothing about a problem that has been clearly defined and understood since the 70s and like the IPCC said we've run out of time short of crippling the world economy to reverse our course.

You've won.

You've won.

You don't need "skeptic" graphs. You don't need junk science paid for by oil lobbyists. You've already won. Just take your victory and gloat... there is literally nothing that will come of it in terms of US policy. Gloat through the heat waves, droughts, f*cked up weather patterns and longer, rainier tropical cyclones.

You won. All the red-hued luminaries in this thread represent the governing opinion in this nation and the world. Sardonicobserver, Zeb Hesselgresser, et al... you won. We're doing what you advocate: absolutely nothing.

sardonicobserver:Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

What's controversial is whether mankind controls climate. The Kyoto protocols, in which the developed countries would use carbon credits as a basis to transfer their wealth to undeveloped countries, would have brought down Western civilization while temporarily enriching the third world countries, which has become known as the motivation of those who organized and wrote the protocols - but a reduced carbon emissions would not accrue due to the carbon credits and the financial transactions. The Paris Accords would require the US to reduce its carbon emissions 10% over current levels while the rest of the world, including China, had limits more like 1%, and the US is already doing far more than anyone else to reduce carbon emissions, so that the only way to reduce emissions another 10% would be to drastically downsize US industry. Signatories on the Kyoto protocols and the Paris accord are those that would benefit financially or competitively, including some that would not likely comply, like China.

The science concerning recent decades is muddled due to corruption in the climate community that includes doctoring the raw data. For a short course on what's up with that, go to YouTube and do a search on "hide the decline" and do a web search on "emailgate". If there is anything that we can do, fraud and corruption in the climate community has muddled the picture pretty thoroughly for the time being, preventing a solid basis for decisions with profound economic impact.

We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The only renewable sources ...

Ok so if you're trolling the boards then, cool. I bit. However, if this actually how you think, then you really do not understand. Here's the rub:

You're not arguing/discussing this topic with me or anyone on this thread. The people that are taking the scientific community at their word are not experts, they have just decided that the current climate data from tons of sources is credible.

For individuals like yourself, you are contradicting the tens of thousands of peer reviewed research on the subject. So you can believe whatever the hell you want but just remember that you aren't arguing with me, your refuting the body of scientific knowledge on the subject. Which is just fine. However, see science works like this, if you contradict data, you need proof of your contradiction.

Just stating what you think or what the TV/Internet told you to think doesn't work. You need data. If you continue to think you are right about this then you fall into one of three categories.

My parents live in the basement. Staunch drumpf supporters, and very much climate change deniers.

I know a number of other people very much the same. I've lived in rural Texas, and my parents do the cultish evangelical church stuff. Those are two good groups to check if you want to meet such a person IRL.

My father in law and me last night."Climate change is real.""I believe you, but do we know how much humans are contributing to it?""Does it matter if the end result is the catastrophic destruction of our planet and life on it?"

He didn't have an answer for me. At least the guy believes in science though.

ar393:giantmeteor: long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energ ...

we do? took about one week to install my solar. will have powerwall 2.0 batteries shortly, my house was already all electric, and hopefully get myself a leaf or another plug in electric vehicle.....sure while I can't entirely get off fossil fuels (v8 truck is not going all electric anytime soon...though not against going bio diesel), I will drop my usage of them by close to 98%.

so that road map was about 3 months for me to drop 75 or more percent of my fossil fuel use.

same, though both our cars are electric ;) No 5,000 year road map needed, and wasn't expensive. I pay less for the payments on my solar than I did for the electric, and it'll be paid off in a few years and be forever free-ish. So, it's not like economics was a barrier.

The minisplits were certainly more expensive than the alternative, but...again, not a 5,000 year road map.

sardonicobserver:The US is doing more to reduce greenhouse gases and other manufactured environmental hazards than anyone, and not just CO2. Our emissions requirements are met by all vehicle manufacturers worldwide, as our our rollover of fluorocarbons to less harmful types (Freon R12 to Freon R134a in small air conditioners, for example). Our innovations in clean power and industry are available to everyone that is willing to use them.

Hate to post and run, but there's a bunch of misconceptions in here. I'll post links where I can, but this will be more sparsely explained that I usually like.

For this first point, this really isn't true. There has been reductions in the last few years in terms of CO2 emissions because of a price-driven transition to natural gas, but this is a very far cry from doing more than anyone. Just as a random example, Denmark's ongoing efforts to eliminate usage of fossil fuels by 2050.

sardonicobserver:If you haven't googled "hide the decline" and read the summaries of peer-reviewed papers, you might want to add that to your personal information repertoire. Truth isn't political, it's truth. And, if it is your field, you should take advantage of an opportunity to broaden your information base whenever reasonably possible.

sardonicobserver:The models are what they are. The problem is the assumptions and data used in the models, and selection and interpretation of results. For a quick primer on climate model prediction accuracy for the non-climate-scientists, do a web search on "spaghetti models" to show the amazing variety of hurricane path predictions using the same available data. Even the National Hurricane Center varies the position of a hurricane a few days hence by hundreds of miles with every day or so. If they can't tell within a thousand miles or so where the epicenter of a storm will be a week from now, how reliable are they expected to be in extrapolating anything a millennia or so? As far as assumptions, archaic relations between fossil bubbles CO2 percentage and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

Meh. Just wait until half of Floriduh is under water permanently. Problem solved, one way or another.

Isn't Mar A Lardo really close to the shore? Let it go under.Yes, I realize this probably puts Miami, at least, under water, too.

It's apparently what Floriduh wants. So let them have it. They vote for assholes who don't give a fark about sea level rise, so ... let's let them have the satisfaction that comes from voting for people who don't give a fark about you doing nothing about a problem that directly affects you. Maybe if it happens enough, they'll stop voting, at least.

factoryconnection:Here's a olive branch to all you staunch defenders of the GOP's position that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax designed to make you all look foolish:

YOU'VE WON. We've done basically nothing about a problem that has been clearly defined and understood since the 70s and like the IPCC said we've run out of time short of crippling the world economy to reverse our course.

You've won.

You've won.

You don't need "skeptic" graphs. You don't need junk science paid for by oil lobbyists. You've already won. Just take your victory and gloat... there is literally nothing that will come of it in terms of US policy. Gloat through the heat waves, droughts, f*cked up weather patterns and longer, rainier tropical cyclones.

You won. All the red-hued luminaries in this thread represent the governing opinion in this nation and the world. Sardonicobserver, Zeb Hesselgresser, et al... you won. We're doing what you advocate: absolutely nothing.

Here was a Tweet from noted asshole Erick Erickson yesterday...

So maybe they are turning that corner, will set aside their bullshiat talking points will just flatly admit that they don't care. Then we no longer have to get into these exhausting conversations.

bdub77:My father in law and me last night."Climate change is real.""I believe you, but do we know how much humans are contributing to it?""Does it matter if the end result is the catastrophic destruction of our planet and life on it?"

He didn't have an answer for me. At least the guy believes in science though.

Because the evidence of global warming is now overwhelming and undeniably impacting people's lives, "humans aren't at fault" is just the latest point that the goal posts have been shifted to. It's like a six-year-old who's been denying that the DVD player is broken and when presented with the crayon-stuffed DVD player insists it was not their fault and then gives you a link to a website about crayon-stuffed DVD players being used as fusion generators and tells you to "start here".

Obscure Login:factoryconnection: Here's a olive branch to all you staunch defenders of the GOP's position that anthropogenic climate change is a Chinese hoax designed to make you all look foolish:

YOU'VE WON. We've done basically nothing about a problem that has been clearly defined and understood since the 70s and like the IPCC said we've run out of time short of crippling the world economy to reverse our course.

You've won.

You've won.

You don't need "skeptic" graphs. You don't need junk science paid for by oil lobbyists. You've already won. Just take your victory and gloat... there is literally nothing that will come of it in terms of US policy. Gloat through the heat waves, droughts, f*cked up weather patterns and longer, rainier tropical cyclones.

You won. All the red-hued luminaries in this thread represent the governing opinion in this nation and the world. Sardonicobserver, Zeb Hesselgresser, et al... you won. We're doing what you advocate: absolutely nothing.

Here was a Tweet from noted asshole Erick Erickson yesterday...

[img.fark.net image 535x220]

So maybe they are turning that corner, will set aside their bullshiat talking points will just flatly admit that they don't care. Then we no longer have to get into these exhausting conversations.

"Erick Woods Erickson is a politically conservative American blogger and radio host. He hosts the radio show Atlanta's Evening News with Erick Erickson, broadcast on 750 WSB, and runs the blog The Resurgent"

whidbey:beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

bigfatbuddhist:sardonicobserver: We have a long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Yes. The roadmap is a follows: When fossil fuels run out, we'll panic and start using nuclear fuel rather than spend this time developing renewable sources.

That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.

World agriculture may be able to feed perhaps a billion people. World population is now perhaps 7.6 billion people. Famine and chaos could cause the collapse of civilization worldwide. This has happened before; example the Greek dark ages from the 12th to 9th centuries BC. With the collapse of the energy infrastructure, most agriculture will collapse too.

beverly8:whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Thorazine:For individuals like yourself, you are contradicting the tens of thousands of peer reviewed research on the subject. So you can believe whatever the hell you want but just remember that you aren't arguing with me, your refuting the body of scientific knowledge on the subject. Which is just fine. However, see science works like this, if you contradict data, you need proof of your contradiction.

Just stating what you think or what the TV/Internet told you to think doesn't work. You need data. If you continue to think you are right about this then you fall into one of three categories.

- Intellectually Lazy- Willfully Ignorant- Stupid

Choose one.

How about "no blinders, no tunnel vision"?

NOTE: None of my posts have taken any position such as some have projected in their demonized images of what they perceive as their political opposition.

Damnhippyfreak:and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

whidbey:beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

beverly8:whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

whidbey:beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

And in so doing, it belies your real perspective.

that he is a hypocrite? yes, that is my perspective. why are you swinging on his dick so hard?

beverly8:whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

And in so doing, it belies your real perspective.

that he is a hypocrite? yes, that is my perspective. why are you swinging on his dick so hard?

I'm not 'swinging on anyone's dick,." but it's a litmus test, and you're not passing it.

Anyone in this post celebrating that this hit Florida is an asshole, and anyone in here claiming the climate has no affect on Hurricanes is an asshole. Is there anyone left who isn't an asshole after those qualifiers?

sardonicobserver:Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

whidbey:*beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

And in so doing, it belies your real perspective.

that he is a hypocrite? yes, that is my perspective. why are you swinging on his dick so hard?

I'm not 'swinging on anyone's dick,." but it's a litmus test, and you're not passing it.

ahhahahahahahaaa, man, i wish i was able to put in words exactly how amusing i ind this. not only do you overestimate your intelligence by a longshot, but you also think you have the competency to test people with dumb farking shiat like saying algore? also, i feel as though you have no idea what a litmus test even is.

beverly8:Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

whidbey:Obscure Login: So maybe they are turning that corner, will set aside their bullshiat talking points will just flatly admit that they don't care. Then we no longer have to get into these exhausting conversations.

"Erick Woods Erickson is a politically conservative American blogger and radio host. He hosts the radio show Atlanta's Evening News with Erick Erickson, broadcast on 750 WSB, and runs the blog The Resurgent"

Shocking.

It would save us all a lot of time arguing pointlessly, that's for certain. The ruling modus operandi in the United States is "do absolutely nothing other than mind those quarterly earning reports." All the helpful Farkers in this thread arguing that we're not warming or that humans can't possibly affect climate have the goal of "do absolutely nothing other than mind those quarterly earning reports." They're at "mission accomplished: flawless victory" and still wasting their time arguing on here.

So what's the point? Your arguments will never hold factual water because actual scientists who have encyclopedias worth of knowledge more than we do on the topic have already proven you wrong, but politicians have already made it so it doesn't matter.

Just admit you don't care and move on! You can gloat about winning in two sentences and maybe a poorly-constructed meme and save yourself 400 words per copypasta.

cameroncrazy1984:beverly8: salutations, random stranger on the internet, i shall now test you and determine your entire personality based on my faulty ass human interpretive bullshiat mind

duh.

Well you certainly did that for Al Gore so why not

how so? im calling him a hypocrite because of visible outward behaviors he has exhibited over the course of many years. he says he is concerned about the climate, he lectures on the climate, yet he has a very high carbon footprint. what would you call that?

Gubbo:beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

Humor appreciated but set aside, perhaps it's a competitive attitude problem in some cases. In developing countries, foregoing clean industry during start-up is perhaps forgivable because it's a small thing compared to the rest of the world, but then there are cases like China and others. China didn't begin to start trying to control atmospheric pollution until it became a major public health problem in their largest cities.

I once had a Nixon joke book that asked "When will Nixon do something about air pollution?" Answer was "When it interferes with TV reception." A news photo on a Chinese news site:

whidbey:sardonicobserver: Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

sardonicobserver:whidbey: sardonicobserver: That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.

Humor appreciated but set aside, perhaps it's a competitive attitude problem in some cases. In developing countries, foregoing clean industry during start-up is perhaps forgivable because it's a small thing compared to the rest of the world, but then there are cases like China and others. China didn't begin to start trying to control atmospheric pollution until it became a major public health problem in their largest cities.

I once had a Nixon joke book that asked "When will Nixon do something about air pollution?" Answer was "When it interferes with TV reception." A news photo on a Chinese news site:[img.fark.net image 800x534]

china knows its going to sufer badly because of wet bulb temps going up enough to cause unlivable conditions in some pretty large areas of the country. india will have the same issue. like, 6 hours in the shade and a normal healthy adult dies type shiat is gonna happen

sardonicobserver:So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

how so? im calling him a hypocrite because of visible outward behaviors he has exhibited over the course of many years. he says he is concerned about the climate, he lectures on the climate, yet he has a very high carbon footprint. what would you call that?

Because it's difficult to get a message across while living out in the woods? I think Al Gore has the charisma of a log, but what would be gained by him making some pointless gesture?

To put it another way, that's like asking why a billionaire who argues for higher taxes on the rich doesn't just give all their money away. It completely misses the point of their arguement.

how so? im calling him a hypocrite because of visible outward behaviors he has exhibited over the course of many years. he says he is concerned about the climate, he lectures on the climate, yet he has a very high carbon footprint. what would you call that?

Because it's difficult to get a message across while living out in the woods? I think Al Gore has the charisma of a log, but what would be gained by him making some pointless gesture?

To put it another way, that's like asking why a billionaire who argues for higher taxes on the rich doesn't just give all their money away. It completely misses the point of their arguement.

oh, see, you misunderstand. this douchebag fark im responding to goes around stalking me on here and responding to any comment i make, regardless of its content, with algore. at first i thought the dumbass was being sarcastic, but now its just farking stupid. i believe it stems from my comments in the cofee thread a few days ago, where i was being silly and commented on celebrities and politicians needing to reduce their footprints to the level of normal us citizens, at least, and making fun of how the article are picking one crop (coffee) and making it a fallguy whilst neglecting the impact o all crops altogether, linking a lecture by a highly respected climate scientist named kevin anderson, mentioning that he is able to lecture without flying.

now he thinks im a republican or some shiat. im guessing he has no idea that im linking respectable people in the field, while hes going on about al gore

I remember being taught , when I was child in school, being taught that America was exceptional, and that we were expected to lead the world by example.Now, we are like ill-bred children."Bobby doesn't have to do it! Why should I? I'll be dead before it matters anyway!"Time to melt the Statue of Liberty down for scrap, and sell the national parks to corporations.It was an interesting experiment - but it's failed.Fortunately, we are a self-solving problem.

cameroncrazy1984:OldJames: cameroncrazy1984: OldJames: It would be harder to deny climate change if there was a year of no hurricanes. Hurricanes are part of the south east's climate, and there is no way to tell if a hurricane is scheduled, or because of climate change.

To properly evaluate this, we have to wait a year or two, then run a nice statistical analysis, look at standard deviations, and then make sense of the data. A heat wave or a blizzard doesn't prove anything for anyone other than you know what the weather is outside. If you don't know how to calculate standard deviations, you should have went to high school, that one is on you.

I wonder if this denial started because of Al Gore and the deep-seated and pathological need of republicans to be opposed to virtually anything that comes from democrats, even when it agrees with their interests.

Seriously, I wonder what would have happened if, say, one of the Bushes politically broached the issue? Would they still deny it, or would they gear up their pro-capitalist 'war machine' to push an entire industry dedicated to battling it?

I sometimes feel like we could get a lot more done if we tricked republicans into thinking they had the idea first. Kind of like the stereotype of the wife manipulating the controlling husband into thinking doing the things she wants to do was his idea. It's sad that this is something I can see working.

sardonicobserver:Thorazine: For individuals like yourself, you are contradicting the tens of thousands of peer reviewed research on the subject. So you can believe whatever the hell you want but just remember that you aren't arguing with me, your refuting the body of scientific knowledge on the subject. Which is just fine. However, see science works like this, if you contradict data, you need proof of your contradiction.

Just stating what you think or what the TV/Internet told you to think doesn't work. You need data. If you continue to think you are right about this then you fall into one of three categories.

- Intellectually Lazy- Willfully Ignorant- Stupid

Choose one.

How about "no blinders, no tunnel vision"?

NOTE: None of my posts have taken any position such as some have projected in their demonized images of what they perceive as their political opposition.

Cthulhu Theory:I wonder if this denial started because of Al Gore and the deep-seated and pathological need of republicans to be opposed to virtually anything that comes from democrats, even when it agrees with their interests.

Seriously, I wonder what would have happened if, say, one of the Bushes politically broached the issue? Would they still deny it, or would they gear up their pro-capitalist 'war machine' to push an entire industry dedicated to battling it?

I sometimes feel like we could get a lot more done if we tricked republicans into thinking they had the idea first. Kind of like the stereotype of the wife manipulating the controlling husband into thinking doing the things she wants to do was his idea. It's sad that this is something I can see working.

Republicans (conservatives) believe more in conservationDemocrats (liberals) believe more in preservation

sardonicobserver:whidbey: sardonicobserver: Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

beverly8:sardonicobserver: whidbey: sardonicobserver: That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.

Humor appreciated but set aside, perhaps it's a competitive attitude problem in some cases. In developing countries, foregoing clean industry during start-up is perhaps forgivable because it's a small thing compared to the rest of the world, but then there are cases like China and others. China didn't begin to start trying to control atmospheric pollution until it became a major public health problem in their largest cities.

I once had a Nixon joke book that asked "When will Nixon do something about air pollution?" Answer was "When it interferes with TV reception." A news photo on a Chinese news site:[img.fark.net image 800x534]

china knows its going to sufer badly because of wet bulb temps going up enough to cause unlivable conditions in some pretty large areas of the country. india will have the same issue. like, 6 hours in the shade and a normal healthy adult dies type shiat is gonna happen

This raises the question "How can we help?" And, finding a way to help is not a goal, it's an agenda.

whidbey:sardonicobserver: So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

sardonicobserver:whidbey: sardonicobserver: So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

Ah finally the true colors show.

THIS is an excellent example!!!! ^^^

Yes, it is an excellent example of why we will not be taking you seriously in this thread.

jso2897:I remember being taught , when I was child in school, being taught that America was exceptional, and that we were expected to lead the world by example.Now, we are like ill-bred children."Bobby doesn't have to do it! Why should I? I'll be dead before it matters anyway!"Time to melt the Statue of Liberty down for scrap, and sell the national parks to corporations.It was an interesting experiment - but it's failed.Fortunately, we are a self-solving problem.

You sound like a petulant child who's crying because they're a few points behind in a game and wants to give up rather than work to pull back ahead.

sardonicobserver:beverly8: sardonicobserver: whidbey: sardonicobserver: That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.

Humor appreciated but set aside, perhaps it's a competitive attitude problem in some cases. In developing countries, foregoing clean industry during start-up is perhaps forgivable because it's a small thing compared to the rest of the world, but then there are cases like China and others. China didn't begin to start trying to control atmospheric pollution until it became a major public health problem in their largest cities.

I once had a Nixon joke book that asked "When will Nixon do something about air pollution?" Answer was "When it interferes with TV reception." A news photo on a Chinese news site:[img.fark.net image 800x534]

china knows its going to sufer badly because of wet bulb temps going up enough to cause unlivable conditions in some pretty large areas of the country. india will have the same issue. like, 6 hours in the shade and a normal healthy adult dies type shiat is gonna happen

This raises the question "How can we help?" And, finding a way to help is not a goal, it's an agenda.

ar393:giantmeteor: long range roadmap to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energ ...

we do? took about one week to install my solar. will have powerwall 2.0 batteries shortly, my house was already all electric, and hopefully get myself a leaf or another plug in electric vehicle.....sure while I can't entirely get off fossil fuels (v8 truck is not going all electric anytime soon...though not against going bio diesel), I will drop my usage of them by close to 98%.

so that road map was about 3 months for me to drop 75 or more percent of my fossil fuel use.

Been saving up for something similar myself. Where did you get your solar from? Self install or something professional?

we do? took about one week to install my solar. will have powerwall 2.0 batteries shortly, my house was already all electric, and hopefully get myself a leaf or another plug in electric vehicle.....sure while I can't entirely get off fossil fuels (v8 truck is not going all electric anytime soon...though not against going bio diesel), I will drop my usage of them by close to 98%.

so that road map was about 3 months for me to drop 75 or more percent of my fossil fuel use.

Been saving up for something similar myself. Where did you get your solar from? Self install or something professional?

Pro install. not against doing it myself, but didn't have the time. I did do the my roof first myself.14.85 kw system, 45 330 panasonic panels, 2 solaredge 7600 inverters.

and soon....soon, two powerwall 2.0s that my utility is going to pay most of! (The CA rebates are better, but it is what it is since i don't live in CA)

sardonicobserver:whidbey: sardonicobserver: Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

You realize you just said you ignore "... the facts", un-ironically, right?

Those who ignore facts should not be taken seriously, and you're practically begging to be dismissed out of hand by stating that. Even if those facts are wrong, you can't ignore them, you must address them.

Until humans can control the sun, we do not control the temperature of the planets atmosphere. Can we control a volcano from erupting or stop an asteroid from striking? What is today's average temperature for the Earth? It is much hotter around the equator than at the poles. Is this a sea level temp or an average altitude? Most of the data points come from high density human population centers, that can wildy skew the results. What is today's temperature in the middle of the Atlantic and the Pacific? Is this global temperature reading an average for the day or at high noon on a sunny day?Tax the largest corporate and government polluters first, not all the little mouth breathers they prey on. Pouring Concrete and asphalt all over the world is not helping. If your climate isn't changing then you might live in San Diego. Belief is for a religion.

flynn80:Until humans can control the sun, we do not control the temperature of the planets atmosphere. Can we control a volcano from erupting or stop an asteroid from striking? What is today's average temperature for the Earth? It is much hotter around the equator than at the poles. Is this a sea level temp or an average altitude? Most of the data points come from high density human population centers, that can wildy skew the results.

Um, Bullshiat?

Tax the largest corporate and government polluters first, not all the little mouth breathers they prey on.

How do you "tax" public services?

Pouring Concrete and asphalt all over the world is not helping. If your climate isn't changing then you might live in San Diego. Belief is for a religion.

factoryconnection:You won. All the red-hued luminaries in this thread represent the governing opinion in this nation and the world. Sardonicobserver, Zeb Hesselgresser, et al... you won. We're doing what you advocate: absolutely nothing.

My one old friend who used to be a bit of a denier really hated when I said this to him! Didn't know what to say. I suspect in the last few years, he's changed his mind. We don't get so many deniers around here these days.

Cynicism101:factoryconnection: You won. All the red-hued luminaries in this thread represent the governing opinion in this nation and the world. Sardonicobserver, Zeb Hesselgresser, et al... you won. We're doing what you advocate: absolutely nothing.

My one old friend who used to be a bit of a denier really hated when I said this to him! Didn't know what to say. I suspect in the last few years, he's changed his mind. We don't get so many deniers around here these days.

Yeah, just spike the ball, dudes. So satisfying, so quick... instead they're burning clock arguing semantics over whether China is developing or a full-scale polluter. Who gives a f*ck? The exceptional leader of the world says "do nothing."

The Dilbert guy seems like a real tool but I'm with him that economic models are the worst kind of models though the climate models are pretty good. This is discussed in The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver, which I highly recommend.

HOWEVER! you probably don't need an economic model to tell you that natural disasters and flooding coastlines are expensive to deal with.

The problem with change, climate, society, cultural or whatever is that it either changes on 1) a glacial pace so that people living today would have to sacrifice for change they may never realize but their offspring would2) a sudden drastic correction by an unspeakably horrific act by god or man that hits the reset button. ( extinction event, socitetal collapse from war or disease )

everyone is betting that putting off a) will eventually result in b), after they are gone and also that b) will fix it for everyone left.

Except humanity has mined out the possibilty of recovery from b) now. The world isnt small anymore. All the easy to get low hanging fruit is gone. Changes arent geographically isolated. When it happens. Its going to be a unknown level of correction not known to man.

beverly8:whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

And in so doing, it belies your real perspective.

that he is a hypocrite? yes, that is my perspective. why are you swinging on his dick so hard?

You do realize Al Gore uses green energy, increased efficiency of his properties, and offsets his carbon usage to be carbon neutral right? He even gave a damn TED talk about ways to do so.

beverly8:sardonicobserver: beverly8: sardonicobserver: whidbey: sardonicobserver: That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.

Humor appreciated but set aside, perhaps it's a competitive attitude problem in some cases. In developing countries, foregoing clean industry during start-up is perhaps forgivable because it's a small thing compared to the rest of the world, but then there are cases like China and others. China didn't begin to start trying to control atmospheric pollution until it became a major public health problem in their largest cities.

I once had a Nixon joke book that asked "When will Nixon do something about air pollution?" Answer was "When it interferes with TV reception." A news photo on a Chinese news site:[img.fark.net image 800x534]

china knows its going to sufer badly because of wet bulb temps going up enough to cause unlivable conditions in some pretty large areas of the country. india will have the same issue. like, 6 hours in the shade and a normal healthy adult dies type shiat is gonna happen

This raises the question "How can we help?" And, finding a way to help is not a goal, it's an agenda.

reduce emissions drastically and now. thats why im so farking cynical about shiat like articles saying omg dont drink coffee, climate change. it has to be on a scale that most people arent going to want to deal with. but this is whats facing china http://news.mit.edu/2018/china-could-f​ace-deadly-heat-waves-due-climate-chan​ge-0731

If the past few decades is any guide, China will not take the economic hit of lowering emissions drastically unless everyone else does it first, no matter what. More mature governments such as that of India are better but not leaders like the US and much of developed Europe. The US is already doing the best we can toward lowering carbon and fluorocarbon emissions and striving to do better.

If you look at the history of China in the last few hundred years, they were emerging with the rest of the world until the colonial interests sought to undermine their coalescing central governments and colonize their coasts (internet searches: "opium wars", "boxer rebellion", "century of humiliation" will get you started). Trade partners walked all over China until Mao's government took hold and then pulled the economy together, which took decades and a pivot to privatization and such. They've been playing the same game now for a few decades but with their history they believe that's the just way of the world.

Cthulhu Theory:sardonicobserver: whidbey: sardonicobserver: Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

You realize you just said you ignore "... the facts", un-ironically, right?

Those who ignore facts should not be taken seriously, and you're practically begging to be dismissed out of hand by stating that. Even if those facts are wrong, you can't ignore them, you must address them.

No one has presented any "facts" to refute any "position". What we have is a few "Resistance" people who see hobgoblins in a post that doesn't reflect their political position. Those who actually read the posts see that I'm not taking any political position whatsoever, nor denying climate change...

Cthulu, I'm taking the time to reply to your post because I don't think anything that I actually posted in this thread is antithetical to anything, and your history seems more constructive than argumentative. If you have the time, please search for my user name in this thread from the beginning and read each post through to the end.

sardonicobserver:Cthulhu Theory: sardonicobserver: whidbey: sardonicobserver: Damnhippyfreak: and geologic evidence of global temperature, there is a causation presumption there; see previous post./It's going to rain next week.//Probably.///Somewhere.

Shorter-term weather-related prediction is a fundamentally different problem than long-term climate prediction (https://www.popsci.com/environment/ar​ticle/2009-03/weather-prediction-clima​te-prediction-what's-diff). It's the underlying reason why people tend to distinguish between climate and weather. Even more fundamentally, you can't say that all models are somehow untrustworthy because one kind has a wide margin of error.

It looks like you have at least an idea of what intellecutal honesty is. At this point, when faced with the idea that you have some basic misconceptions about this topic, you should be asking yourself just how informed you are about this topic, and whether your opinion is based on evidence or something else. Let's see what you choose to do.

User name checks out.

You might take his comments more seriously. He has facts, you have disinformaton.

So many SJW's have jumped on my posts, imagining a climate change denier, that I'm only replying to posts with substance. Those with ad hominem attacks or things like "you're dumb" or "I'm more knowledgeable than you" or "... the facts" I ignore. Sorry.

You realize you just said you ignore "... the facts", un-ironically, right?

Those who ignore facts should not be taken seriously, and you're practically begging to be dismissed out of hand by stating that. Even if those facts are wrong, you can't ignore them, you must address them.

No one has presented any "facts" to refute any "position". What we have is a few "Resistance" people who see hobgoblins in a post that doesn't reflect their political position. Those who actually read the posts see that I'm not taking any political position whatsoever, nor denying climate change...

Cthulu, I'm taking the time to reply to your post because I don't think anything that I actually posted in this thread is antithetical to anything, and your history seems more constructive than argumentative. If you have the time, please search for my user name in this thread from the beginning and read each post through to the end.

/Where's the beef?

The beef is in the eye of the beholder! Duh. ;)

Also, you don't need me to validate anything. Just stick to providing objective things and addressing the points/facts you take issue with and I'm sure you'll be just fine. Just, whatever you do, don't go around talking about ignoring facts.

sardonicobserver:China will not take the economic hit of lowering emissions drastically unless everyone else does it first, no matter what. More mature governments such as that of India are better but not leaders like the US and much of developed Europe. The US is already doing the best we can toward lowering carbon and fluorocarbon emissions and striving to do better.

winedrinkingman:I have religious family members from that region who have already said they think Panama City was hit by a hurricane because of all the proud people and sinfulness in the area, and that God was trying to make them repent and change there ways. That's right. It wasn't climate change, it was because the Florida Panhandle wasn't religious enough.

sardonicobserver:No one has presented any "facts" to refute any "position". What we have is a few "Resistance" people who see hobgoblins in a post that doesn't reflect their political position.

Actually, posters like Zafler and Damnhippyfreak are doing you a courtesy that you, the one who has actual burden of proof, shouldn't be getting. You have the obligation to prove your contentions, not anyone else.

The Dilbert guy seems like a real tool but I'm with him that economic models are the worst kind of models though the climate models are pretty good. This is discussed in The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver, which I highly recommend.

HOWEVER! you probably don't need an economic model to tell you that natural disasters and flooding coastlines are expensive to deal with.

I posted the Dilbert strip because it represents a thumbnail of lots of pointless arguments. It's a bit sharper to one side than the other, though.

I've heard of The Signal and the Noise. I'm no stranger to modeling, prediction and statistics, so I looked at the book on Amazon. It's inexpensive and has the "Look Inside" feature. The TOC shows that it addresses things on a pretty high level using elementary arguments so it talks to a lot of people, but the introduction and Chapter 1 show the depth to be pretty limited -- other Amazon suggestions from the shopping cart page include "High School Math Made Simple." But it looks like a really excellent monolograph on what modeling and prediction is all about, with examples and curves, sort of like the book Augustine's Laws which is one of my favorites. So, I'm getting a copy and will read it. If it pans out, I'll offer it up to others when it seems constructive to do so.

Regarding sea level rise and flooding, yes, it is happening and it's real, and it seems obvious that the warming trend is a causative element there. Global temperature averages were 10 F lower during the height of the last Ice Age when glaciers reached the tropics, the sea level was tens of feet lower than it is today, and early Mongols walked from Siberia to Alaska on dry ground. But the "hockey stick" turned out to be an artifact of data manipulation and the selection of models and their results. Al Gore's famous slide show that was the basis of An Inconvenient Truth, once he was done saying "I used to be the next President of the United States" at the start of the movie, predicted that the "hockey stick" curve would continue and temperatures would run away, and that the sea levels would rise something like 30 feet by... 2020??? The fact that global temperatures declined slightly for a decade after 2000 didn't help his case, and ClimateGate exposed the bogus use of models in generating the hockey stick, most notably by Michael E. Mann, the author of the paper that defined the hockey stick to the climate science community. It appears that grant money or some similar influence(s) corrupted the climate science community beyond all credibility, disabling the capability of the climate science community to affect national policy. If there is anything we can do that would help, we need a credible basis to support huge, expensive decisions, but, there hasn't been one since then, so we don't know, and nobody will do anything really expensive. For that, you can blame the corruption of the climate science community.

The Dilbert guy seems like a real tool but I'm with him that economic models are the worst kind of models though the climate models are pretty good. This is discussed in The Signal and the Noise by Nate Silver, which I highly recommend.

HOWEVER! you probably don't need an economic model to tell you that natural disasters and flooding coastlines are expensive to deal with.

I posted the Dilbert strip because it represents a thumbnail of lots of pointless arguments. It's a bit sharper to one side than the other, though.

I've heard of The Signal and the Noise. I'm no stranger to modeling, prediction and statistics, so I looked at the book on Amazon. It's inexpensive and has the "Look Inside" feature. The TOC shows that it addresses things on a pretty high level using elementary arguments so it talks to a lot of people, but the introduction and Chapter 1 show the depth to be pretty limited -- other Amazon suggestions from the shopping cart page include "High School Math Made Simple." But it looks like a really excellent monolograph on what modeling and prediction is all about, with examples and curves, sort of like the book Augustine's Laws which is one of my favorites. So, I'm getting a copy and will read it. If it pans out, I'll offer it up to others when it seems constructive to do so.

Regarding sea level rise and flooding, yes, it is happening and it's real, and it seems obvious that the warming trend is a causative element there. Global temperature averages were 10 F lower during the height of the last Ice Age when glaciers reached the tropics, the sea level was tens of feet lower than it is today, and early Mongols walked from Siberia to Alaska on dry ground. But the "hockey stick" turned out to be an artifact of data manipulation and the selection of models and their results. Al Gore's famous slide show that was the basis of An Inconvenient Truth, once he was done saying "I used to be the next President of the United States" at the start of the movie, predicted that the "hockey stick" curve would continue and temperatures would run away, and that the sea levels would rise something like 30 feet by... 2020??? The fact that global temperatures declined slightly for a decade after 2000 didn't help his case, and ClimateGate exposed the bogus use of models in generating the hockey stick, most notably by Michael E. Mann, the author of the paper that defined the hockey stick to the climate science community. It appears that grant money or some similar influence(s) corrupted the climate science community beyond all credibility, disabling the capability of the climate science community to affect national policy. If there is anything we can do that would help, we need a credible basis to support huge, expensive decisions, but, there hasn't been one since then, so we don't know, and nobody will do anything really expensive. For that, you can blame the corruption of the climate science community.

Wow, that's a lot of words to say "I don't like the scientific conclusions made by many hundreds and thousands of studies from around the world"

Cthulhu Theory:Cthulu, I'm taking the time to reply to your post because I don't think anything that I actually posted in this thread is antithetical to anything, and your history seems more constructive than argumentative. If you have the time, please search for my user name in this thread from the beginning and read each post through to the end.

/Where's the beef?

The beef is in the eye of the beholder! Duh. ;)

Also, you don't need me to validate anything. Just stick to providing objective things and addressing the points/facts you take issue with and I'm sure you'll be just fine. Just, whatever you do, don't go around talking about ignoring facts.

Thanks for the good advice.

I try to ignore posts that just troll without saying anything, but did call a couple of them out today. But, "don't feed the trolls" is a good policy. I looked at the user profile of one persistent troll, and saw that this FARKer posts long argumentative threads on his profile and such. Then I noticed that he was trolling lots of other posts on this thread. There was no actual content in any of his posts. I'm thinking of blocking that one. I never blocked FARKers before because there's always the possibility that on another thread they might be funny or informative.

That's a huge number, but typical of the 24/7 output of a small to medium sized power plant. How many of these does China have? What is the renewable energy output of the US? Britain? France? Germany?

Do note that China is doing more on fusion power than just about anyone else. If they get it first, cheap energy can give them a huge advantage in world trade. The rest of the world is sharing all fusion technology and information. And, some if not all Chinese fusion researchers are sharing too. Right now, plans are to build the first prototype in Europe. That first continuously operating prototype that is put on the grid 24/7 or any approximation thereof will probably have its greatest value in offering opportunities to solve more technological and physics issues, more so than in producing power for invested money and effort, but the generation after that will begin the revolution. So, if China wants to invest in their own Tokamaks and Stellarators, it's just fine with everyone. The US is doing that, as is Germany and others.

Sean VasDeferens:Gubbo: Lucky LaRue: Weather is not the same thing as climate. Trying to equate a hurricane with climate change makes the alarmist look even more uneducated and ignorant than they actually are.

While it is true that hurricanes are not caused by climate change, there is a lot of building evidence that the increase in frequency, the increase in strength, and the massive increase in how quickly hurricanes are intensifying are all linked to global warming.

But sure, go with your technically correct and completely devoid of context post.

We just went 12 years without a hurricane making landfall in the U.S.

I think that's what Trump was referring to as "the calm before the storm".

whidbey:cameroncrazy1984: Wow, that's a lot of words to say "I don't like the scientific conclusions made by many hundreds and thousands of studies from around the world"

Sometimes Fark really is a humor site.

The Earth doesn't care about economics or politics. And since there's a significant number of people in powerful positions who only care about economics and/or politics, who are just aggravating the problem, there's not much else to do most of the time.

We may have to wait for Nov 8, or 2020, or whenever we have a chance to remove the people who only care about politics/economics from power, but the Earth waits for no one.

Zafler:beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: whidbey: beverly8: Gubbo: sardonicobserver: Climate is and has always been changing in one way or another. Earth has had ice ages and warm ages, and the Sun palpably goes through 11-year cycles that vary from time to time. There was the medieval warm period followed by the little ice age, which ended in the 1850-1900 time frame. There has been a warming trend since about 1900. Data for recent decades has been diddled; see below.

<snip>

Baffle with bullshiat

actually, the part about it being altered is true, however, they have been altered in the opposite direction. they arent being amped up, they have been being toned down. a lot.

algore

dude, its the total truth though. and, as a person who does not drive, lives in an apartment, uses reusable things rather than one time and toss products, still uses a note 4, and a computer that was my moms old one, and is probably about ten years old now, and barely ever flies, even though, as a person born abroad, and having almost my entire maternal side in france, i have more o a valid reason to fly frequently than a farking person being a tourist on vacation, and eats as much local foods as i can, i think i have every right to talk shiat about some high emitting douchebag who scolds everyone else about their emissions,

Yes, algore has a mansion and tells people what to do.

Nothing fishy about anyone who pushes this narrative.

i dont push it, dummy, you do. you are the one bringing him up, not me.

And in so doing, it belies your real perspective.

that he is a hypocrite? yes, that is my perspective. why are you swinging on his dick so hard?

You do realize Al Gore uses green energy, increased efficiency of his properties, and offsets his carbon usage to be carbon neutral right? He even gave a damn TED talk about ways to do so.

And you still realize he is a very high itter, and offsetting Is a complete bullshiat term which means jack shiat in reality, right?

sardonicobserver:beverly8: sardonicobserver: beverly8: sardonicobserver: whidbey: sardonicobserver: That's my great fear, and if the developed countries don't fund the effort to get out in front of the problem, we will have the problem get out in front of us, as you say.

Humor appreciated but set aside, perhaps it's a competitive attitude problem in some cases. In developing countries, foregoing clean industry during start-up is perhaps forgivable because it's a small thing compared to the rest of the world, but then there are cases like China and others. China didn't begin to start trying to control atmospheric pollution until it became a major public health problem in their largest cities.

I once had a Nixon joke book that asked "When will Nixon do something about air pollution?" Answer was "When it interferes with TV reception." A news photo on a Chinese news site:[img.fark.net image 800x534]

china knows its going to sufer badly because of wet bulb temps going up enough to cause unlivable conditions in some pretty large areas of the country. india will have the same issue. like, 6 hours in the shade and a normal healthy adult dies type shiat is gonna happen

This raises the question "How can we help?" And, finding a way to help is not a goal, it's an agenda.

reduce emissions drastically and now. thats why im so farking cynical about shiat like articles saying omg dont drink coffee, climate change. it has to be on a scale that most people arent going to want to deal with. but this is whats facing china http://news.mit.edu/2018/china-could-f​ace-deadly-heat-waves-due-climate-chan​ge-0731

If the past few decades is any guide, China will not take the economic hit of lowering emissions drastically unless everyone else does it first, no matter what. More mature governments such as that of India are better but not leaders like the US and much of developed Europe. The US is already doing the best we can toward lowering carbon and fluorocarbon emissions and striving to do better.

If you look at the history of China in the last few hundred years, they were emerging with the rest of the world until the colonial interests sought to undermine their coalescing central governments and colonize their coasts (internet searches: "opium wars", "boxer rebellion", "century of humiliation" will get you started). Trade partners walked all over China until Mao's government took hold and then pulled the economy together, which took decades and a pivot to privatization and such. They've been playing the same game now for a few decades but with their history they believe that's the just way of the world.[Link][img.fark.net image 800x1076]By Henri Meyer - Bibliothèque nationale de France, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.​php?curid=62229

Yes, the last few years, they have turned around in their environmental protection concerns and actions. I'm hoping that one more generation of leadership will allow near-full generalization of China's integration into the world community, including use of treaties and alliances to assure access to sea lanes like everybody else instead of islet-and-dredging based weapons bases with radio messages like "We Chinese navy. You leave now." Normalized low or zero tariff trade, no currency devaluation, and balance of trade, with normalized relations with the other great powers, along with the emergence of cheap renewable energy, will allow a truly great nation to emerge.

Natalie Portmanteau:Dork Gently: Ike was Category 2 when it first hit the continental US. Sandy was barely a hurricane under the Saffir-Simpson scale when it finally made landfall.

First landfall was in the Caribbean as a 4. Ike hit texas as a 2 and still did a tremendous amount of damage. Sandy shut down the east coast for almost a week.

This metric of "lol doesn't count" is ridiculous. Ike killed 195 people, sandy killed 285. Katrina killed 1833 as a cat 3 (granted, the levees made it worse), but cat 5 Andrew killed 65. Maybe the Saffir-Simpson scale could use some tweaking.

Sean responded to a claim that intense storms are growing in frequency. If the US mainland recently went 12 years without being hit by a severe hurricane, that suggests the original claim was wrong.

A really effective rebuttal would be that the US often went longer than that in the past (although I have no idea whether that is true). Another effective rebuttal would be that the total number of "major hurricanes" -- rather than just those that hit the US mainland -- has not dipped (again, I have no idea if that is true).

Unless you suggest a specific other scale, complaining about Saffir-Simpson is a relatively weak rebuttal, because Saffir-Simpson is still what experts commonly use, and it is what people are used to. Even if you have a technically better scale in mind, it is probably going to be hard to calculate trustworthy numbers in that scale for historical storms, so it will not be useful as a measure of intense storm trends for many years.

That's a huge number, but typical of the 24/7 output of a small to medium sized power plant. How many of these does China have? What is the renewable energy output of the US? Britain? France? Germany?

Do note that China is doing more on fusion power than just about anyone else. If they get it first, cheap energy can give them a huge advantage in world trade. The rest of the world is sharing all fusion technology and information. And, some if not all Chinese fusion researchers are sharing too. Right now, plans are to build the first prototype in Europe. That first continuously operating prototype that is put on the grid 24/7 or any approximation thereof will probably have its greatest value in offering opportunities to solve more technological and physics issues, more so than in producing power for invested money and effort, but the generation after that will begin the revolution. So, if China wants to invest in their own Tokamaks and Stellarators, it's just fine with everyone. The US is doing that, as is Germany and others.

You're the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. You speak confidently on subjects you have massive ignorance on, and don't bother to do even the most basic of research into the subject. I award you no points, and may a god of some sort have mercy on your soul.

That's a huge number, but typical of the 24/7 output of a small to medium sized power plant. How many of these does China have? What is the renewable energy output of the US? Britain? France? Germany?

Do note that China is doing more on fusion power than just about anyone else. If they get it first, cheap energy can give them a huge advantage in world trade. The rest of the world is sharing all fusion technology and information. And, some if not all Chinese fusion researchers are sharing too. Right now, plans are to build the first prototype in Europe. That first continuously operating prototype that is put on the grid 24/7 or any approximation thereof will probably have its greatest value in offering opportunities to solve more technological and physics issues, more so than in producing power for invested money and effort, but the generation after that will begin the revolution. So, if China wants to invest in their own Tokamaks and Stellarators, it's just fine with everyone. The US is doing that, as is Germany and others.

So, According to you, a full 25% of the entire U.S. electricity consumption comes from 1 medium size power plant.

You're the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect. You speak confidently on subjects you have massive ignorance on, and don't bother to do even the most basic of research into the subject. I award you no points, and may a god of some sort have mercy on your soul.

Sorry, I read that as billion, and it is trillion. Without taking time to research the number (I have a place to be this morning!), I would like to get all the numbers that I posted in the message that you flamed.

My general policy is not to engage with self-appointed online Antifa trolls. You seem to have a trace of logic and humor, though. But if China is seriously providing a lot of solar/wind energy relative to their energy use, that is interesting and I will verify myself, because your presentation did not seem... thoughtful and gentlemanly.

But I do like your meme.

Please note that in none of my posts did I disagree with or contradict good science in "thousands" (a few tens?" of climate science papers. The points I raised about correlation vs. causation and in sources of C02 in ancient atmospheres are well noted in climate science. The only reason that the self-appointed online Antifa piled on my posts is that they saw initiative and new thinking there, which is highly alarming to fascists. They presumed that I was something I'm not and attacked their own demons, not me. So, I've been gentle.

Yes, because people who are properly informed about climate change issues calling your disinformation and ignorance out in this thread must be on medication.

And then you call people who condemn your damaging comments "trolls."

You have no shame, sir.

I haven't made any damaging comments about anyone. You seem to be replying to everyone late in this topic with argumentative posts lately, apparently without reading the threads or having the slightest idea of what is in each thread. Your profile features clipboard copies of entire argumentative threads with no apparent substance. And, you're not getting many replies lately.

I see from your profile that you were gifted Total Fark by Myrdinn, whose profile shows him to be a Resistance type. Drilling down in to Myrdinn's profile shows him/her to be a dedicated online gamer and a very proud and wide ranging troll. I didn't check for a 4chan account in that username. So, pro troll Myrdinn is buying Total FARK accounts for other trolls...